If you shot a golf ball from on top of the Eiffel Tower?

yep. Mechanical Engineering. What course did you do~?

Hi Rob

We did cover Coriolus force and its proof by first principles. I was very average at Uni .
Absoletely certain without google I could no longer do that.

Heck I sound a bit like Kermit the frog who sat half way up the stairs.

I feel for folk who are

nice one honestnovice.

:)

I must say I am rather disappointed that certain forum members have expressed their surprise that this thread has lasted nearly 300 posts. I am a very interesting person and people hang on my every word don't you know - you only have to look at my quizzes to realise how popular I am, the last one went on for three days!

Robdylan. I've just googled 'Golfball flight' and learned quite a lot. The golfball has BACKspin which is caused by being hit with the golf stick. About 5,000rpm, apparently. This causes all sorts of wierd and wonderful laws to come into play. But my theory should have caused FORWARD spin and my dimple theory is 'up the Swanee' too.

My only remaining straw within grasping range is that the original question precludes the use of a golf stick, so there would be no initial imparted spin at launch time. Didn't see any data for what would happen to a golf ball with no initial spin.

I agree, though, that there has been some bloody good theorising and ideas bandied about. A step up from fart-sniff. :-)

just got back from a session naydam. yep, everything that is good and bad about chitchat has been found on this thread imo.

interesting thread, yet no one could solve the "Cecil Rhodes" crossword clue

golf stick!!!!

oh gawd ... orioles will crucify you :(

Fact!

the golf ball dropped would hit the ground first.

The wind pressure on the ball hit horizontaly would create upwards drag. Stick ure hand out your car window when driving and it willl lift in the air. Esp more so as the dimples on golf balls exagerate this lift.

if you dropped a golf ball an a bowling ball form the same height they would hit the ground at the same time

the ball that is fired will take longer to drop

THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP

The fired ball has longer to drop because of Earth's curve.

This thread reminds me of Karl Pilkington's utter refusal to understand the nature of infinity, "how would they know if they'd made a mistake".

Infinity is easy to grasp id you think of everything as cyclical.

*if

Maleuk. Why should it lift? Formula 1 cars use the same phenomenum to create downforce.

That doesn't mean they stick their hands out! :-)

phenomenum
(ba dee bedebe)
phenomenum
(ba debe dee)
phenomenum
(ba dee bedebe badebe badebe dee dee de-de de-de-de)

Sparky. It was that or 'thing'. Mind you, I can spell 'thing'. :-)
Effect!! That's the word I wanted. Damn!

I was talking to a friend of mine this evening, who did a DPhil at Oxford. He's a physicist and I mentioned this thread (God help me - I haven't spoken to him in ages, but he lives abroad and I'm due in the area next month and thought I'd drop in. I rang to arrange things and we spent 10 minutes talking about a thread on Chit Chat!)

He gave me the answer :)

i'm not getting involved.

Why does this thread have 309 replies please?

Because our education system is failing.

Hardly think chit chat is going to educate the nation.

That could be the forum motto.

'Chit Chat, education for the nation.'










I'll get me mortarboard.

This has to be a gag yes?
If there is force a horizontal trajectory would delay the gravity effect.
The fired ball (whether upwards or horizontal) would take longer to fall.

What if it was fired straight out (not angled into the air)?

So, are we all agreed that the fired ball would take slightly longer now? (Assuming that it didn't land on higher ground somewhere)?

what about if you had a van packed with 1000 parrots all sitting on perches attached to the van , then weighed the van . the someone fired a gun and the parrots were no longer sitting on their perches but in the air in the van , would the van weigh the same ??

ENGLANDAWAY 10 May 00:43
If there is force a horizontal trajectory would delay the gravity effect.

Good Lord :(

oh sorry thought this was a dom deluise tribute thread

dead pop stars 10 May 08:46
what about if you had a van packed with 1000 parrots all sitting on perches attached to the van , then weighed the van . the someone fired a gun and the parrots were no longer sitting on their perches but in the air in the van , would the van weigh the same ??

no

Right, time to put this thread to bed. The correct answer is actually not very satisfying as it is actually variable.

Nicky Campbell's The Big Question is just starting now on BBC1. They might cover it!

what about the down force of the flapping

naydam 09 May 22:07


Maleuk. Why should it lift? Formula 1 cars use the same phenomenum to create downforce.

bit of a silly question.

Cars esp formula 1 cars have a very different design. They need to create a downforce to stop the taking off or flipping over!

golf balls are designed to create lift. If you could create 2 of the same exact strikes on a golf ball with dimples and 1 without, the golf ball with dimples would fly higher and longer and remain in the air longer.

A most pleasing thread.

I found it rather depressing.

But ho hum :)

It can't be done

It can't be done

para**

anyone see myth-busters last week? one was about firing things and dropping them at the same time and the other episode was about the aerodynamics of a golfball. They made a golfball car so it more efficient. My favourite programme now.

So if we threw a glider off the top of the Empire State Building, would it land at the same time as one we just dropped?

Would depend on the elevator trim.

(and by that, I don't mean the metal edging around the inside of the lifts).

A great fred and quite funny in places. I think what Orioles was trying to say, is that the question is hardly rocket science, hang on a minute....

this thread had 300+ posts written all over it

munch man 29 Oct 14:47
anyone see myth-busters last week? one was about firing things and dropping them at the same time and the other episode was about the aerodynamics of a golfball. They made a golfball car so it more efficient. My favourite programme now

What was the upshot then?



or should that be downshot?


or straight shot?

A gun was fired at 90° at same time as bullet was dropped from same height. Both hit floor at same time :)

What if you shot a Frenchman from the top of the tower?

You'd have to drop his twin brother at the same time

t = sqrt (2sg)

if u dont have cannon, u can try this: pi55 holding ur dick horizontal and shi8 at same time. i tried and both reached parisian heads (though diff parisian standing a few meters apart) at the same time.

It's a wonder that isn't in the Physics A-level

The conclusion of the myth busters programme was the following. 1) The bullet fired straight ahead did land at the same time as the bullet dropped. Tested and proved.
2) A golfball's dimples reduces the drag effect in the air. They hit a smooth golfball and it only went 66% of the distance of a normal dimpled ball. Tested and proved.
Therefore, despite the evidence of point number one, a golfball hit off the top of the Eiffel Tower would land after the dropped ball because of the dimple effect.
Well done to all who said this. I wasn't one of them.

They also covered a car in about 500 large dimples and unbelievably it increased its fuel economy by 11%.

I would have thought a smooth car would have been more aerodynamic, but apparently not. I wonder why cars are not made this way? It looked a bit strange, but hey 11% saving is 11%, especially in today's climate of energy efficient incentives.

i was right.

for all the wrong reasons.

New evidence just in!

People taking mallets to their cars as we type...

I seem to have missed this thread when it was here before.

Can somebody condense it, please ?

5 or 6 lines at most

Ta.

If you shot a golfball from the top of the Eiffel tower, from a powerful cannon facing straight out (not angled into the air) and dropped another golf ball over the side at the same time, which one would hit the floor first? I think they would land at the same time. Is this correct?
yes
no
yes
no

yes

no

Only if one was a Nike soft core and the other a Callaway

The golf ball has forward energy as well as having the Earth's gravity on it. It will hit the ground much much later than one dropped with just the Earth's gravity pulling on it.

If fired at the Earth's escape velocity it would go into orbit [ ignoring air resistance ] as previously stated.

The golf ball has horizontal velocity and would land later than if just dropped over the side [ even ignoring the curvature of the Earth for really high velocities ] as also previously stated.

The golf ball has only been struck once; it has no secondary power source. Therefore, the horizontal velocity mentioned on its own doesn't effect its rate of descent. I believe this has been proved via the bullet experiment.

However, as also mentioned, the hundreds of dimples on a golf ball minimise the drag in flight and would keep it in the air longer than the dropped ball.

Good haul though Munch. :)

A better question might be :-

How do we get a sodden cannon up to the top of the Eiffel Tower in the first place ?
Lift won't hold one , stairs are too narrow and "Suicide Jumper "prevention measures stop a Helicopter lowering one .. :-)

BTW ..the answer to your question is most definetely the dropped ball , as a fired ball from a cannon pointed horizontally describes a parabola curve downwards not a straight line ....
good eh !!... ;-)

That wouldn't affect its rate of descent, though Joe.

If it wasn't for the dimples on the golf ball, both would land at virtually the same time.

Albeit a long way apart! :)

the golf ball that is hit will hit the floor last, and i'm pi.ssed

Brilliant Mands, thank you very much!

At the same time

Ttt

bump

It's appeared at last!

I bumped this thread about 10 minutes ago when I posted that quote from it on the other thread. Wondered where it had gone.

This is the thread that inspired my cueball discussions. I doff my thinking cap to you, Munch Man.

And I hope you are well, sir.  Haven't seen you around lately.

Whatever the Big O says is correct.

He is the master of AW shrewdiosity, a legend in his own lunchtime and I will not have his flawed logic floored.

Meanwhile, back in the batcave, rd worships a man who has not seen a bar of soap in 30 years.

True dat.

Why, if you throw a tennis ball into the air sitting in the back seat of a car going 60mph, doesn't it go into the back window?

Because the ball is travelling at 60mph when you chuck it in the air

Relative to someone stood on the pavement the ball will land 50 yards further down the road  than its take off point

If you are moving at 60mph and throw a ball up in the air you are actually also throwing it forwards at 60mph too.  I think.  That question used to intrigue me when I was a kid.

someone already mentioned terminal velocity, so the thread should rest in peace.

if you have one arm out the car window and one inside the car and a ball in each which you throw up at the same time, which are you more likely to catch if you are travelling at 30mph

depends on speed bumps

neither if you are driving

My favourite row of this type is the, 'how do they drive the minis onto the bus in The Italian Job'?

long time no see

The cannonball has forward momentum and therefore will land after the ball dropped straight down.

Think of it this way, assuming no air resistance, the escape velocity of the Earth is 25,000MPH or there about's. Fire a cannonball at this speed horizontally and it will circle the Earth and come back to the same spot without touching the ground. It will also take 90 minutes to travel that distance.

Assume the cannonball has slightly less momentum, it will hit the Earth gradually but the forward momentum will ensure that it still hits the ground in more time than it takes to drop the thing straight down.

Any forward momentum therefore will always result in a longer time taken.

Problem solved.

Ttt

I'd probably use a 7 iron off the Eiffel Tower but some people might say I was going in Seine.

Good to see munch man back   A good chit-chitter, not like the bunch we've got now

Why don't you shut up you bloody little moaner.

SEETHING

Tell me a pretendy story Culvin, go head...

It was my pleasure to eavesdrop on almost this exact argument in the pub tonight. I vowed there and then to resurrect this classic thread upon my return. :)

Bravo, Munch!

Hey Poker, belated Happy new Year, I don't get on here very often these days. ALL the best.

Not long in. bed is calling, good night guys.

Happy new year, Foxy. :)

Lot of bad physics in that thread. When I saw the title I didn't realise it was an old one and thought it was brassneck!